Projector calibration wizard

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds valuable behavioral context: it explicitly notes that live projector alignment is 'unverified until run on the physical outputs,' which sets expectations for safety and reliability. This is more transparent than simply stating 'build' and provides a clear caveat.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. It efficiently enumerates the built components without unnecessary fluff. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope and safety profile.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's core purpose and components. It does not mention the return value (e.g., the generated COMP path), but for a build tool this is often implied by the name/parent_path parameters. The safety caveat adds important context. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when to use it, though a note on return type would improve completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema coverage, the parameters are individually well-described. The tool description adds architectural context by linking parameters (e.g., source_path as TOP selection, include_corner_pin as corner pin, expose_controls as brightness/gamma controls, projectors as per-projector lanes). This helps users understand how the parameters fit together, going beyond mere schema repetition.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('projector calibration network'). It lists concrete components (grid/crosshair, per-projector crop/corner-pin/level/output lanes, preview layout, notes, brightness/gamma controls), distinguishing it from generic mapping tools like create_projection_mapping by emphasizing 'calibration' and 'rehearsal-safe'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context: it is rehearsal-safe and alignment remains unverified until run on physical outputs. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_projection_mapping, nor does it provide clear exclusions. The note about unverified alignment hints at a limitation but lacks direct guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.